User:The ed17/Archives/49

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Alaskas GT
Hey Ed, I got USS Alaska (CB-1) and USS Guam (CB-2) up to GA, which means the Alaska class is complete for a GT. The box could look something like this:

We can change the image if you like, this is just the first one I looked at. Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I like it, and nice job! For the picture, you could use the outboard profile at the top of Alaska class cruiser or you could go with the picture of Guam partway down if you want... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The line drawing might be nice - the red hull is rather eye catching. One of the camouflage ones might be even better in that regard (like File:CB-2 Guam 1944.png). Do you want to go ahead and make the nomination? You did all the hard work on the first two, especially getting the class article to FA :) Parsecboy (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I just tried it with the line drawings, and it's really squished, probably because of the length to height ratio. A photo will probably be the better option. Parsecboy (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Either one works for me. Try the one of Guam from above in the class article; I think that'll work. I'll let you nom it, as I have to run out the door right now. :-) If you haven't done it later, I can, but it's not a big deal to me. Random thought, if you have U.S. Cruisers, I don't think getting Hawaii to FA will be horribly difficult. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll take care of it. And as for US Cruisers, I don't, but I know someone who does :) I've actually been meaning to ask him for some help with my current project in that regard. If we can push Hawaii to FA, we'll be at the requisite 50% for the FT. Parsecboy (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There it is. And you were right, the Guam photo is really quite good. Parsecboy (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

We're a little further away than that, as we're at 25 out of 30 required for the FT by my count. You can see the draft FT at my sandbox, about halfway down. With Akagi at FAC now (go forth review it pronto!), that makes 26 and Hawaii would make 27. We still need to get the list of US BCs up to speed as well as the battlecruiser article itself while I plug away at Lexington and Saratoga and eventually the Lexington class article. It would be great if we can get Cam to submit a couple of his Kongos to FAC; I talked to him about doing that over Christmas break, but nothing happened. Maybe we can get him to do one as a co-nom with one of us. School is demanding a whole lot more of my time than I'm used to as two of my classes require homework to be turned in every single class and I can't do it all at once before the test like I was doing before so my productivity is going to be a lot lower this semester.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "cough"Borodino"cough" US BC list"cough"Main BC article"cough"Kongo"cough wheez wheez collapse" Buggie111 (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sturm, I was talking about the Alaska GT, not the main battlecruiser topic. But you're right, there is still some work to do to get the main topic up to FT. Unfortunately, I'm just about tapped out on the German ships - there really isn't enough material for any of the three unbuilt designs to push them higher than GA. Do you think you can get Queen Mary to FAC, since she's already at A? Ed, what's the feasibility of you getting the Lexington class article through FAC once the SADR passes? I'll saunter over to the Akagi FAC in the next day or so.
 * Buggie, find a cough drop already :P Parsecboy (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, my mistake. I can take Queen Mary to FAC pretty easily after a little clean up and probably start ACRs on Lion-class and Indefatigable-class as well. Borodino is going to need a lot more work and I'm not really in any hurry to do that since much of that will be eliminating a bunch of extraneous refs added by persons unknown. I'd prefer to sit on the Lexington class article a bit longer as there's a lot more stuff that needs, IMO, to be added before it goes to FAC, not least the very detailed design history given the in Warship 2011 article. I can do that once I get Lexington to bed since Saratoga's going to be a very long article that I'm not really in a hurry to start given how much I've been fussing over Lex with a fair amount still to go. I've been surprised that the DANFS entry for Lex doesn't cover her peacetime activities in any detail at all, so I've been scrambling to fill in that gaping hole. Fortunately there are a few new books that cover the US Fleet Problems that are enroute to help me solve that problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at American & British Aircraft Carrier Development? It mostly about organizational and technical development, but it does talk about fleet problems in the 20s and 30s Lex and Sara participated in, so it might be useful. Parsecboy (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it, not that useful, unfortunately. And, curiously, it's not that good on British developments compared to Friedman's later book on British carrier aviation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Lex, what Sturm said. Also Sturm, do you have Warship 2006? I was curious to know what the Almirante Latorre article could add to the article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got it, lemme pull it off the shelf and see what it covers. Not much, just some mentions of small alterations made before she entered British service (most notably shortening the funnels) and a speculative plan that Vickers put together to modernize her AA armament after WW2.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was worth a shot -- thanks Sturm! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is, due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by, whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is, who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
 * was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
 * was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
 * was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
 * is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
 * was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
 * was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: January 2012
Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited South American dreadnought race, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages River Plate and La Prensa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Arizona (BB39) Port Bow, Underway - NARA - 5900075 - 1930.jpg
Hello, could you please help us identify the time and location that this image was taken, I'm writing this here because you had nominated USS Arizona (BB-39) for FA, also as a member of WP:OMT, you probably have good information about this. this image is currently nominated for FP, please see its discussion here. Thanks for the help.  ■ MMXX  talk  00:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2012

 * —  Imzadi 1979  →   22:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Online Ambassador, Spring 2012
Hi, The Ed17! As you may know, the Wikipedia Education Program has instilled a new set of standards that courses must meet to officially join the program for the semester. As you can see, one of the requirements is that at least one ambassador or professor is a Wikipedian, as this should give students more access to helpful information about contributing to Wikipedia and creating good content. You are listed on the Online Ambassador page; are you still interested in remaining active this semester? Some of these classes will have to remove themselves from the program should they fail to meet these standards, but we would like to ensure that new students are receiving proper support during the editing process. Please let me know if you are still interested in mentoring these students this semester and/or visit the Online Ambassador talk page to select a course that still needs an Online Ambassador. Thank you! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

re South American dreadnought race
Hi,

Thanks for fixing the description for the Signpost. I read the article several times but couldn't make much sense out of it. Perhaps if you put that summary in the lede, it would help editors like me! Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Anytime, and that's not so good. I'll take a look and try to simplify it. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon at Hennepin County Library
Minneapolis History edit-a-thon

We invite the Minnesota Wikipedia community and local historians to edit entries in Wikipedia on Minneapolis history. Please help us increase the depth of information on Minneapolis history topics by utilizing materials in the Minneapolis Collection. Find your own Minneapolis History topics to edit or work from a list developed by Special Collections Librarians.

Where: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis

When: Saturday, February 25, 2012, 10-5 pm

10 am - 11 am Orientation to Minneapolis Collection

11 am - 5 pm Edit-a-thon Website: Hennepin County Library, Special Collections, Map & Directions

Parking: Metered street parking or pay ramp in basement, enter on 4th Ave --HCLschlubb (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I won't be able to attend – I'll be getting back into town at 2am the morning of, and have work that night. Sorry! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Timing at SG's page
Hi Ed!

Considering that she's quitting, would you please remove your comment.

There is a time and place for it, but not there and not now. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Keifer, I'm pretty sure she won't mind. Thanks though. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

AWOL?
Okay, I take one two-week semi-break in 4 years, and everything goes to hell :) You've got my full support, in everything.  Let me know if you need anything. - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well this obviously means it was all your fault! Thanks Dank, this and a couple emails I received reminded me why I like this place. There's plenty of good people around here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sinking of the RMS Titanic FAC
Thanks very much for your comments on the Featured Article nomination of Sinking of the RMS Titanic. I've replied to the issues you raised - could you please take a look and indicate whether you might now wish to support the nomination? Prioryman (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm sorry I haven't responded – I was on a much-needed break. I'll check back as soon as possible.

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear The ed17,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I can probably do one. I'll sign up shortly. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm cross with you

 * Strange, I thought the edit summary said you were sending me wikilove, not a dire warning full of unspoken threats. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Draft op-ed
Hi mate, I still have a diagram of the WP vs. MilHist assessment streams to upload but if you can have a look in Feb's newsroom, I welcome comments (on my talk page I guess, so as to leave comments at the bottom of the page itself until after publishing the issue). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Mrt3366
Strange that a relatively new user would be so quick to declare a vendetta! He seems to be quacking a bit to me as a possible sock of User:Chanakyathegreat who I've crossed swords with in the past though (very similar editing histories on the topics of interest plus the so quick to vendetta thing). Reluctant to SPI though because it'd probably be seen as tit for tat... - The Bushranger One ping only 20:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try to keep an eye on things. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Awkward one...
See here. Do you think this constitutes significant work for a double point GA? J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The rules as written, for what it's worth, are "All reviewed content must have been worked on significantly by you during the competition to receive additional points. "Drive by" nominations are not permitted. This does not mean that you have to be the primary author, though it is preferable. Merely copyediting or wikifying an article does not constitute "significant work", but if you are one name on a joint nomination, you may claim points. If this is abused, the judges reserve the right to not award points." J Milburn (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Aieee. This is a tough one. By the letter of the rules, he's out of line – but he also wrote the whole thing (in May/June 2011) rather than finding an already-good article and tweaking it. If we want to be really strict, I think we need to remove it, but we could broker a compromise (lose the 2x multiplier?) instead... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jarry's made the call to withdraw the article under his own steam, which was good of him. He's managed to bag a couple of DYKs, so he should be making it to the next round anyway. Thanks for your thoughts! As an aside, because I've quite clearly upset Sandy, and several editors I respect have said I used the wrong words, I won't be looking into the issue she raised. If you feel up to it, I'll be happy to go along with whatever call you make. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy's upset because her post was made in good faith and you assumed otherwise. Still, the issue I had is Sandy seemingly denied that she has consistently made negative comments toward the Cup, and that any suggestion to the contrary is a personal attack. What you said was not a personal attack, J, and Sandy's TPSers (understandably) supporting their friend doesn't change that. As for the Legolas issue, there's some pretty strong evidence that he has falsified sources, and all three citation issues brought up at the beginning of the RS/N discussion were in articles he claimed for points. I think we would be right in removing him from the competition, as this sort of fraud really can't be tolerated, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts first. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Wrong words"? "Hate mongering", gee, ya think?  Great example of why WP:CIVIL is so contested, because asshole pales in comparison to calling someone who merely notified you in good faith of a problem that affects all of us, me included for having promoted one of his FAs, a "hate mongerer".  Maybe you two aren't assholes (at least not intentionally, anyway)-- maybe you're just young and naive as to the effects you have as admins, and the responsibility that goes along with that.  What part of my simply informative post contained any sort of suggestion of criticism of the CUP?    Perhaps both of you are so defensive that you can't see good faith when it's staring you in the face.  No, I'm not upset that you both behaved like children.  I'm upset that you, The ed17, are a hypocrite.  You redacted and covered up Brad101's posts calling Bishonen a "bitch", but you let stand resinstated J Milburn's posts calling me a "hate mongerer".  You, The ed17, are consistently showing that you don't know what a personal attack is, and unless you can figure that out, you shouldn't be an admin.  And you, J Milburn, who made the personal attack shouldn't be one either.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we have different definitions of 'personal attack' and mine has a higher threshold. CIVIL, in my view, is contested because the definition can vary based on the person viewing it. I actually said that the post was made in good faith and without criticism of the Cup – what I was trying to say was that you have opposed the competition in the past, and saying you haven't is just not true. With regards to Bishonen vs. J, you're comparing apples to oranges. I take different approaches to different situations. In the former, I was trying to calm tensions; in the latter, I didn't believe it was a personal attack, and posts are typically redacted by the original poster. If you believe my actions have been serious enough to be desysopped, I invite you to open a discussion at ANI or start a user request for comment. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in seeing you desysopped; I've stated my views. And you have managed to avoid addressing why you think calling someone a "hate mongerer" is not a personal attack.  As I said, I suspect you're a well meaning youngster, not fit to hold the admin tools, but this is Wiki, so the rest of us get to get insulted by well meaning youngsters who should have been whacked by their parents with a cluestick.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying that I am "not fit to hold the admin tools" certainly sounds like you'd like to see me desysopped. In the context of the post, I didn't take 'hate mongering' (which you misquote above as 'hate mongerer', a very different meaning) as being meant at you, but as a description of what you had been doing. Like I've previously said, it was a poor choice of words. Anyway, I understand your trepidation about younger editors (see my first year of editing, which are rather embarrassing), but I don't think that really applies to me anymore. Perhaps we have different views because of the age disparity. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ya know, mr ed, your constant evasion is exasperating. Now just imagine how much more productive all three of us could have been if J Milburn had just acknowledged the good faith notification of a problem for all of us, and you two had set about deciding, as cup judges, how you wanted to handle this predicament rather than wasting your time attacking me?  Or, alternately, if J Milburn had just acknowledged his mistake so we could all move on, or you had not reinstated a personal attack.  Instead, you're here increasing (not) my respect for you by wikilawyering the difference between hate mongering and hate mongerer, while J Milburn has yet to retract his hateful attack, and you have yet to retract your reinstatement of it.  It's not only about age; it's just that some folks were never taught the power of apology by their parents, and those folks make this place suck.  I have no interest in seeing you desysopped, but honestly, if you want to be an admin, you both should figure out what an attack is, and J Milburn should figure out what canvassing is (another one he has yet to retract or apologize for).  You're both supposed to be community leaders: acknowledging your massive fuckup would be a good place to start leading.  By the way, maybe you can explain what you were thinking when you reinstated a personal attack-- what did you, me, the CUP, or anyone gain by your doing that?  Why didn't you leave it to J Milburn to reinstate it, if he so believed it was OK to attack like that?  By reinstating it, you both attacked.  To what end, Ed ... how does your brain work?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ed, I think you can now see why I didn't really want to enter into the discussion about how to deal with Legolas. If you feel removing him is appropriate, then please go for it- I will back whatever decision you make. J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see another abusive admin who doesn't want to discuss his irresponsible personal attack. Geeez, how hard is it for you folks to apologize?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia, how about cleaning your own backyard first? You have yet to apologise for your sexist remarks on your own talkpage (do you recall that you called J and Ed for assholes?). I also do hope that you remember that you accused me of sabotage in the last year's WikiCup, yet did not apologise, even though you said on your talk page that it was "rather inept editing than a CUP issue" (another PA for which you did not apologise). Why are you being so hypocritical? --Eisfbnore talk 15:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I sure did call them assholes after they attacked me, re-attacked me, refused to redact, reinstated the attack, and refused to acknowledge my helpful attempt to nofify them, calling me a hate mongerer and accusing me of canvassing for merely notifying them of an issue that involved all of us. Notice how no IRC buddies showed up to block me, since anyone could see that I was first attacked, re-attacked, and then baited-- by admins, no less?   Retaliation when one is attacked is never right, two wrongs don't make a right, but neither is it right for admins to so blatantly attack another editor (and given our recent history, The ed17 knew all of this darn well when he reinstated the attack, after covering up a previous attack from a MilHist colleague ... he knew the issue, which is why I consider I was baited).  Got a diff for that discussion with you?  Newsflash:  on Wikipedia we are free to criticize content.  Which by the way is not something I did in this instance anyway, so your input here is irrelevant. By the way, what makes asshole sexist?  I'm a woman and I have an asshole myself.  But while you're here meddling in a discussion about an issue between Ed, J Milburn and myself, perhaps you can answer a hypothetical question.  Suppose I hadn't notified the CUP, and based on falsified sources, Legolas is advanced at the expense of another editor, who had edited according to policy, not advancing?  If you were the editor left behind, while another editor advanced after falsifying sources, how would you feel about me not notifying the CUP of a known issue that affected them?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given your erstwhile attacks on the WikiCup, it is not unreasonable that JM would consider your notification on the WT:CUP page—albeit civilly phrased—hate mongering. Perhaps you should have let somebody else make the notification? Of course I condemn abuse such as falsification of sources, but you'll have to concede that your history with the WikiCup does play a role.
 * Alas, I'm on my iPad now, which for some strange reason cannot copy URLs, but I am able to give you a wikilink to the archived discussion in which you called me pig-headed and inept. At no point did you apologise on my talk page, even though you admitted that your bad-faith accusations on the WT:CUP page had nothing to do with the WikiCup. Not very relevant, but it elucidates the fact that you are not the person to demand apologies from other editors. Eisfbnore talk 17:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to locate the link in spite of editing from your iPad: I appreciate that. I do not, of course, appreciate the false statement that I called you pig-headed or the demand for an apology for something I didn't say.  If you felt I said that, I most certainly apologize, but what I most clearly said is that some "conclusions" were pig-headed (and who knows what all of that even entailed, since Ed for some reason decided to email me on that one, while I always prefer onWiki communication). And regardless of whether you feel I owe you an apology, we have in this discussion a more serious matter: two admins who have engaged in and refused to retract personal attacks. Had Malleus Fatuorum accused someone of hate mongering, he would be blocked instantly, yet in spite of a recent civility arb case, we have two admins here who can get away with it.  Such is the Wiki; double standards for admins. I also notice that the thread you found makes it quite clear how falsely all of you are portraying my involvement with the CUP, so thanks again for that.  It is apparent that I treated The Ed and J Milburn with respect either they didn't deserve or couldn't be bothered to return.  Anyway ... Of course  J Milburn is free to speculate privately all he wants about my motives, but he's an admin and as such should be aware of our policies on WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CANVASS, so he'd be well advised to check his bad faith at the door before engaging in another attack based on whatever presumptions exist in his mind (ditto to The Ed before restoring an attack). By the way, you still haven't told me how "asshole" is a sexist insult (I admit it's not very creative).  I have two of them: my own, and the better half trying to nap on the couch who wants to know if you think his or mine is the sexist one. Anyway, I'm most clearly wasting my time here, since it's quite evident that these boys have no intention of growing anything like integrity and retracting their attacks.  Boo fricking hoo for me:  have a cocktail and get over it already, you dumb Pollyanna. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @J Milburn- gotcha. I'll remove him later tonight.
 * I don't really remember what that conversation was about. I think you thought a Cup participant was disrupting a FAC for his own gain in the competition(?). I'm glad to see we've moved on to the correct quote, which despite your protestations, has a very different meaning. As such, I didn't restore a personal attack, I restored a post that had been wrongfully redacted. I'm confused as to what you mean by 'IRC buddies'. Moving on, I've treated you with as much respect as I've thought you've deserved. That standard has varied over time. I firmly believe my integrity, which is afaik mostly unsullied, will not be hurt by what was not an attack. Also enjoy your cocktail – I'm polishing off a (weak) cup of Ketel One vodka and Sprite. Good stuff. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Manson48
Haven't investigated this possible sock yet, but take a look at my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. If the abuse has really been going on for three years, it may be worth opening a WP:LTA on them. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Alaska class cruisers/archive1
Hello

I give entry to Featured topic candidates/Alaska class cruisers/archive1 but nobody react and now this topic get promoted. Its strange for me but ok - can you fix this errors? Really - from "metric point of view" this are really errors. PMG (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it's just the infoboxes, right? I'll see if I can double-check the figures tonight or tomorrow. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well - using in en.wiki ships article is usially bad (such errors like in this infoboxes, but I check only infoboxes. Only articles for sure without problems are Parsecboy German ships because as base they use mm/cm units not in. Probably you should check all convert templates in this articles. PMG (talk) 08:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So what you're asking for is more precise conversions? I think I can force that with the sigfig option in the template. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This error is very common in ships in en.wiki. And its give strange results. When I am looking for USS Hawaii (CB-3) and in infobox there is information that she have 130 mm guns it means for me that he has Russian 130 mm guns. Because as far as I know only Russians produce such guns. So as you can see its a problem. And guns 300 od 305 mm? For sure I found many this errors in battleships, because there are big numbers and error is bigger. So for sure on en.wiki this is big problem. PMG (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh. (Those would, of course, be 305mm and 127mm..) Hawaii, at least, is fixed, by forcing the convert template to use metric input and disp=flip... (Also, the French made 130mm guns as well, for the record. ;) ) - The Bushranger One ping only 13:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. But problem is much bigger. For example 4"/50 caliber gun. United States naval gun terminology indicates the gun fired a projectile 4 inches (10 cm) in diameter. 1 inch = 2,54 mm. 4 inch = 10,16 cm so its usually 102 mm. So if I am going to USS Duncan (DD-46) I see that main gun was 100 mm. But for example I am not sure. So I am going to gun article and I still see 100 mm. So I am writing 100 mm. But its not French/Russian 100 mm but British/American 102 mm. Can you see problem? I am translating today many old american destroyers and I have problem that some ships from the same class have 100 mm gun, some 102 mm. So what - they have different guns? No - some data are from template, some data are manually put in text. Two Wickes class ships USS Evans (DD-78) and USS Woolsey (DD-77). One 100 mm, one 102 mm. Same guns or not same gun? I am just show that en.wiki ships people have big problem with unit conversion. Maybe you all are inch-people. Maybe there is no European shiplover on en.wiki - so you don`t see that. But at least in Majestic Titan - please put that in your instructions that article what are going to GA should be checked by some metric/European user. And all values should be correct also in metric system. Because if not - you give sometimes for more than half of world wrong numbers. I translated about 1500 articles from en.wiki to pl.wiki in last 6 years and this is most annoying thing in en.wiki. I love translating OMT articles to pl.wiki - but I non stop checking on calculator that you made a error or not. Many times I can`t trust your numbers. And I am not talking about some stub about motorboat what was 1 month in US Navy. That Hawaii was GA from April 2009. USS Connecticut (BB-18) - 300 mm, should be 305 mm. USS Illinois (BB-65) - is 410 mm, 16 inches is 406 mm. USS Kentucky (BB-66) - same situation. USS Massachusetts (BB-2) - no info about metric data - hey, even US Navy move today to meters. (I don`t know how its possible that this article is FA, without section about guns, but its your wiki so I will be not annoying). In USS Orizaba (ID-1536) there are only Oerlikon have metric data. Or go to HMS Agincourt (1913) there is information that main gun was 12 inches. No info in infobox what is mm. Please guys - don`t be so US/inch-centric. PMG (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * These are rounding errors in the templates (where used) just add |0 to the template to round to nearest whole number. My policy is not to convert size if the gun is linked because the reader can just click on the link if he wants a conversion. I try to provide a conversion on subsequent mentions, but don't always remember.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sturm is right - the template is programmed to round to the nearest 10 for Imperial to metric. I do the same thing with regards to not rounding for gun calibers if I'm using the formal designation (hence, for example, 38 cm SK C/34 gun in German battleship Tirpitz). As far as I know, this is the standard expectation for GA and higher. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And just as a note, the U.S. Navy still uses Imperial units for its weapons (i.e. the 5"/52 Mk 45 gun). - The Bushranger One ping only 19:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I knew that the template rounded but never gave it a huge amount of thought. I'll keep that in mind from now on. As for Massachusetts, the class article has the information on the guns. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio check
Ed, can you look at this and see if the cut-and-pasted newspaper article bit is bad enough copyvio to need revdel? (same content is also in these diffs: through ). Thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick attention! The copyvio isn't in the diffs between this and this though, just FYI. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and revdel'd. No sense in taking chances, esp. when I don't have to decide to revdel years of content, only a few days. ;-) Will unrevdel those, thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for review (referred by Bushranger)
Hello Ed, I have been working with Bushranger on making revisions to a page that was taken down recently. I updated the page based on feedback from him and the other editors who reviewed it. I sent the revised page to him, and he made some edits but said it looked good otherwise. He recommended I run it by you for another opinion. Would you be able to do that for me? It is posted on my userspace, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bgarofallou/Jack_Bergstrand. If it would be better to send to another editor, please let me know. Thanks very much, and let me know if you need more background on this or have questions. Bgarofallou (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't think this is notable, or if it is, it is extremely borderline. You have found quite a few references, but many of them seem to only be of tangential relation to the article and/or are not reliable per our policies. The most notable part of him, for Wikipedia's purposes, seem to be his book and articles, which don't prove his notability (see WP:AUTHOR for more). My apologies. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What I'd suggest would be, perhaps, going to deletion review with the revised/modified article as the proposed-to-be-restored version? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That would probably be best so that it's not only our opinions that are registered. Good thinking, sir. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Round 2 prep
So you know. Still a good few bits and bobs to be done for Wednesday evening, but there's still a few days. I aim to have the "official" list of those who've made it to round 2 tonight, but, in order to do that, I first need to check the last of the contributions. J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorry, I wasn't quite sure how to remove him. I thought it involved changing the color, so I'm glad I didn't do it. ;-) Thanks J. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It normally, but I think it best not to draw attention to this sort of thing. J Milburn (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * point taken, good thinking. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Preparation ongoing as I write this. Pools sorted, tiebreaker resolved, submission pages blanked. Just the newsletter and the update to the history page to go, I think. Anything else need doing? J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Newsletter done. Anything to add? I'll send out come midnight. J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good to me. I've made a few tweaks to the newsletter, including adding our talk pages and email. If you don't like that, feel free to revert. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done. Got a busy day tomorrow, and need to head to bed now. Newsletter's being sent, new pools are up. As far as I can tell, we're pretty much done. (In case it comes up, some points were removed from someone last minute- see User talk:Wilhelmina Will. The user in question isn't thrilled, though are being gracious about it. I think it was a fair move, even if the timing was a little unfortunate. In losing those points, they lost their place in round 2.) J Milburn (talk) 23:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could make that rule more explicit, but realistically speaking I feel like that should have been evident (this is a content competition, after all...). Again, nice work J. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)